M
mvblair2
Guest
You make some great points in your post. Now I see why I was wrong and that the EL really is a piece of shit. You've finally convinced me.
Brandon Jennings = scrub in Europe, superstar in NBA?
- Thread starter sinobball2
- Start date
C
Czarkazem132
Guest
M
mvblair2
Guest
I am certainly not as good a master debater.Hey, you can't beat debating skills like that.
F
Franz2
Guest
Evans won the ROY but Jennings (20.8p) is doing it all in the playoffs. He's THE reason I am supporting the Bucks in the playoffs.
I've been doing the same, both Bucks and Thunder.
P
palomolv2
Guest
That's simply different game what's played here in Europe. Americans always have problems in first seasons here.
F
footballbizz2
Guest
He has a great quality. In Europe, he had the adaptation´s problem. he was very young, new continent...
R
rikhardur2
Guest
M
mvblair2
Guest
Thanks for posting this article. It was a good read.
Jennings is the preps-to-pros player that I'm supposed to hate, but I love this young man. He's intelligent, he's humble, he's athletic, he's poised. He's great. I really like him a lot.
C
CKR132
Guest
And in the pre-draft training camp, Brandon Jennings said "I shut down Rubio!" as a reply to the question on what was his thoughts on Ricky Rubio being the most sought after point guard on the draft.
S
Southpaw2
Guest
I think Josh Childress have the same problem and it took him a full season on learning to adapt to style of play. Jennings would be a superstar in Europe if he actually stayed.
D
dxjayrock20082
Guest
And in the pre-draft training camp, Brandon Jennings said "I shut down Rubio!" as a reply to the question on what was his thoughts on Ricky Rubio being the most sought after point guard on the draft.
Nice put down by Brandon Jennings. Lol.
F
fdlmania2
Guest
So what about Jasikevicius,Navarro,Spanoulis,Macijauskas,Kutluay..?They are king in Europe,but they couldn't even shoot in Nba..
A
Alvertis42
Guest
In the NBA you do not choose the team you get to play in. For everyone else except Americans, that's Illogical101. Team "selects" you through draft after lottery and shit.
So the only answer to your "question" is, what if they played for different teams?
The problem with NBA fanboys is that they say: "he failed in the NBA" as if every NBA team is the same thing. While you hear the same people saying about Childress or Jennings that "he failed in Europe". Well, put Jennings on Panellinios or Panionios, and he'd get to play more and get more shots.
So Jasikevicius "failed" in the NBA. And Rudy Fernandez is "failing" in the NBA because all he must do is stand at the corner to shoot 3pointers! Put Rudy on the Bulls or the Nets or the Knicks, and you might have a Top 30 NBA player.
Other thing I strongly dislike about NBA fanboys is using the terms "he has more rings than player x" or "he averaged 25ppg - 15rpg, he's better than the other guy at another team who averaged 18ppg - 16 rpg"
It's as if NBA fans are no longer interested in the GAME. It is a player-driven league. A star-driven league. They want to create stars. Jennings is just another NBA star creation. Good player, yes, but that's not the case.
So the "king of Europe" was not good in the NBA, so he's not good enough. (note that the NBA has different rules that even NBA legends basically say that are crap and non-basketball)
Just for this once, I will imitiate an NBA fanboy and say this(don't have to mean it, just saying it) :
Dejan Bodiroga was better than any of the current NBA stars is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEzmPKdqt4
Yup, that proves it
(for those who still didn't get that this was sarcasm, I will just say that it was sarcasm)
fdlmania, this post was mostly for you
So the only answer to your "question" is, what if they played for different teams?
The problem with NBA fanboys is that they say: "he failed in the NBA" as if every NBA team is the same thing. While you hear the same people saying about Childress or Jennings that "he failed in Europe". Well, put Jennings on Panellinios or Panionios, and he'd get to play more and get more shots.
So Jasikevicius "failed" in the NBA. And Rudy Fernandez is "failing" in the NBA because all he must do is stand at the corner to shoot 3pointers! Put Rudy on the Bulls or the Nets or the Knicks, and you might have a Top 30 NBA player.
Other thing I strongly dislike about NBA fanboys is using the terms "he has more rings than player x" or "he averaged 25ppg - 15rpg, he's better than the other guy at another team who averaged 18ppg - 16 rpg"
It's as if NBA fans are no longer interested in the GAME. It is a player-driven league. A star-driven league. They want to create stars. Jennings is just another NBA star creation. Good player, yes, but that's not the case.
So the "king of Europe" was not good in the NBA, so he's not good enough. (note that the NBA has different rules that even NBA legends basically say that are crap and non-basketball)
Just for this once, I will imitiate an NBA fanboy and say this(don't have to mean it, just saying it) :
Dejan Bodiroga was better than any of the current NBA stars is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEzmPKdqt4
Yup, that proves it
(for those who still didn't get that this was sarcasm, I will just say that it was sarcasm)
fdlmania, this post was mostly for you
F
fdlmania2
Guest
''Dejan Bodiroga was better than any of the current NBA stars is.''
You are so funny.Get a life..
You are so funny.Get a life..
M
mvblair2
Guest
Here's what I always say with this argument: so much of a player's success depends on the team he is with.In the NBA you do not choose the team you get to play in. For everyone else except Americans, that's Illogical101. Team "selects" you through draft after lottery and shit.
So the only answer to your "question" is, what if they played for different teams?
The problem with NBA fanboys is that they say: "he failed in the NBA" as if every NBA team is the same thing. While you hear the same people saying about Childress or Jennings that "he failed in Europe". Well, put Jennings on Panellinios or Panionios, and he'd get to play more and get more shots.
So Jasikevicius "failed" in the NBA. And Rudy Fernandez is "failing" in the NBA because all he must do is stand at the corner to shoot 3pointers! Put Rudy on the Bulls or the Nets or the Knicks, and you might have a Top 30 NBA player.
Other thing I strongly dislike about NBA fanboys is using the terms "he has more rings than player x" or "he averaged 25ppg - 15rpg, he's better than the other guy at another team who averaged 18ppg - 16 rpg"
It's as if NBA fans are no longer interested in the GAME. It is a player-driven league. A star-driven league. They want to create stars. Jennings is just another NBA star creation. Good player, yes, but that's not the case.
So the "king of Europe" was not good in the NBA, so he's not good enough. (note that the NBA has different rules that even NBA legends basically say that are crap and non-basketball)
Just for this once, I will imitiate an NBA fanboy and say this(don't have to mean it, just saying it) :
Dejan Bodiroga was better than any of the current NBA stars is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEzmPKdqt4
Yup, that proves it
(for those who still didn't get that this was sarcasm, I will just say that it was sarcasm)
fdlmania, this post was mostly for you
Some players get into a good system that fits their style and they become stars. Peja Stojakovic was a good example. He played on a team that was very good at moving the ball. He had two big low-post players in Divac and Webber who knew the Princeton offense. That meant that Stojakovic got open a lot. He was an MVP candidate one year. Then, he went to New Orleans with a team that had very little in terms of passing and a lot in terms of isolation. His productivity dropped.
Same with all these players that we're talking about. In Europe, if Jennings had been on a different team, he might have been a superstar. Same with Childress. Same with Fernandez and (especially) Saras in the NBA. Put these guys on different teams and you've got superstars.
But soon, like an actor, Fernandez will be "typecast" as a shooter, even though he's much better as a cutter and slasher. ...that's just the nature of sports.
C
Chopin2
Guest
Mvblair, there are no superstars in Europe, european bball does not work that way. That of course does not mean that the same player that plays in Euroleague could not be a superstar in the right team in NBA.
I personally do not like this superstars thinking in a team sport and prefer that my team has 10 good players that play as a team. That system can be better than 3 superstars (nba-term btw.) + 7 role players imho.
And you can hardly compare players that play in Euroleague to the players that play in NBA. For me it is much easier to compare players with the ones that play in Euroleague, and the same for NBA (compare players that play in NBA). But of course, even the comparison between players in the same league can be hard (because of diferent roles in the team). The game in the US is quite different from the one in EU and it is very hard to predict how the player from NBA would do Euroleague and vice-versa.
I personally do not like this superstars thinking in a team sport and prefer that my team has 10 good players that play as a team. That system can be better than 3 superstars (nba-term btw.) + 7 role players imho.
And you can hardly compare players that play in Euroleague to the players that play in NBA. For me it is much easier to compare players with the ones that play in Euroleague, and the same for NBA (compare players that play in NBA). But of course, even the comparison between players in the same league can be hard (because of diferent roles in the team). The game in the US is quite different from the one in EU and it is very hard to predict how the player from NBA would do Euroleague and vice-versa.
C
Czarkazem132
Guest
I would have to respectfully disagree with you on having Navarro in the above category.
N
NorCal2
Guest
In the NBA you do not choose the team you get to play in. For everyone else except Americans, that's Illogical101. Team "selects" you through draft after lottery and shit.
So the only answer to your "question" is, what if they played for different teams?
The problem with NBA fanboys is that they say: "he failed in the NBA" as if every NBA team is the same thing. While you hear the same people saying about Childress or Jennings that "he failed in Europe". Well, put Jennings on Panellinios or Panionios, and he'd get to play more and get more shots.
So Jasikevicius "failed" in the NBA. And Rudy Fernandez is "failing" in the NBA because all he must do is stand at the corner to shoot 3pointers! Put Rudy on the Bulls or the Nets or the Knicks, and you might have a Top 30 NBA player.
Other thing I strongly dislike about NBA fanboys is using the terms "he has more rings than player x" or "he averaged 25ppg - 15rpg, he's better than the other guy at another team who averaged 18ppg - 16 rpg"
It's as if NBA fans are no longer interested in the GAME. It is a player-driven league. A star-driven league. They want to create stars. Jennings is just another NBA star creation. Good player, yes, but that's not the case.
So the "king of Europe" was not good in the NBA, so he's not good enough. (note that the NBA has different rules that even NBA legends basically say that are crap and non-basketball)
Just for this once, I will imitiate an NBA fanboy and say this(don't have to mean it, just saying it) :
Dejan Bodiroga was better than any of the current NBA stars is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQEzmPKdqt4
Yup, that proves it
(for those who still didn't get that this was sarcasm, I will just say that it was sarcasm)
fdlmania, this post was mostly for you
I agree with some of your points- that the NBA has become too player-driven instead of team driven, that the NBA places too much emphasis on creating and marketing stars, etc. I will also agree that SOMETIMES players will thrive on certain teams and fail on others. However, I believe the opposite is true more often, that the best players (for the sake of this post, lets say the top 50 players in the world) will get loads of playing time and will be huge contributors to whatever team they are placed on.
The NBA draft is set up so that the worst teams will have the opportunity to draft the best amateur players. That gives some hopes that teams like mine, the Sacramento Kings, can fight for an NBA championship once every couple decades. I see your point that the EL has had more champions over the last 30 years but, unless I'm mistaken the perennially bad teams in each of the domestic leagues essentially never have a chance to win their respective leagues because of the large disparity in payrolls. The NBA has a number of 'roadblocks' that keeps small market teams from being contenders year after year but it also has a number of items written into the collective bargaining agreement so that small market teams (and their fans) can have at least some hope.
S
Strida2
Guest
You know, the funny thing is, after that 55 point game, Jennings went on to have a historically terrible shooting season. I forget the exact numbers, but at one point in the season, nobody in the history of the NBA attempted as many shots as he did, while having such a terrible percentage.
EDIT: Here's what I mean. It's from RealGM, and from last March.
In the history of the NBA/ABA there's only one player who shot under 36% FG, took more than 16 shots/game and had 2.4 to's.
Charles Williams during the 69/70 ABA season shot .359% from the field, had 3.1 to's (and just 3.6 ast) while taking almost 21 shots a game.
Jennings right now shoots 36.9%, takes 15.6 shots a game and has 2.4 to's a game. You could say that's historically bad, here are his peers when you search for a player who took over 15 shots a game against a fg% of less than 38% and who have had (more than) 2.4 to's/game:
Rk Player Season Lg G MP FGA AST TOV FG%
1 Brandon Jennings Oct-09 NBA 59 33.2 15.6 6.1 2.4 0.368
2 Charles Williams 1968-69 ABA 66 34.6 19.7 2.5 3.1 0.373
3 Jamal Mashburn 1995-96 NBA 18 37.2 21.3 2.8 3.1 0.379
4 Charles Williams 1969-70 ABA 26 35.6 20.7 3.6 3.1 0.359
If you'd lower the amount of to/game to 2.0 you could add two Chico Vaughn ABA seasons. So Brandon right now is in a select company of two ABA players and Jamal Mashburn's 18 game season where he played his last season in Dallas on one leg.
EDIT: Here's what I mean. It's from RealGM, and from last March.
In the history of the NBA/ABA there's only one player who shot under 36% FG, took more than 16 shots/game and had 2.4 to's.
Charles Williams during the 69/70 ABA season shot .359% from the field, had 3.1 to's (and just 3.6 ast) while taking almost 21 shots a game.
Jennings right now shoots 36.9%, takes 15.6 shots a game and has 2.4 to's a game. You could say that's historically bad, here are his peers when you search for a player who took over 15 shots a game against a fg% of less than 38% and who have had (more than) 2.4 to's/game:
Rk Player Season Lg G MP FGA AST TOV FG%
1 Brandon Jennings Oct-09 NBA 59 33.2 15.6 6.1 2.4 0.368
2 Charles Williams 1968-69 ABA 66 34.6 19.7 2.5 3.1 0.373
3 Jamal Mashburn 1995-96 NBA 18 37.2 21.3 2.8 3.1 0.379
4 Charles Williams 1969-70 ABA 26 35.6 20.7 3.6 3.1 0.359
If you'd lower the amount of to/game to 2.0 you could add two Chico Vaughn ABA seasons. So Brandon right now is in a select company of two ABA players and Jamal Mashburn's 18 game season where he played his last season in Dallas on one leg.
S
Strida2
Guest
Actually, reading through this thread is kind of funny seeing as most of the posts are from 2009. The NBA (And their players) was being criticized as "not having defense", and yet, Team USA won FIBA 2010 primarily because of their defense! Even players who don't have a reputation for being elite defenders (Iguodala) played suffocating defense.
Also funny how the Knicks are mentioned earlier in this thread, and are called out for having inferior tactics. Now the Knicks are currently playing .500 basketball, and are running some of the most beautiful offensive plays you'll ever see, with a coach who's called one of the most brilliant offensive minds in the NBA. Of course, you can't blame someone for making that original comment...the Knicks were a terrible team, and they didn't have a very smooth offense.
Also funny how the Knicks are mentioned earlier in this thread, and are called out for having inferior tactics. Now the Knicks are currently playing .500 basketball, and are running some of the most beautiful offensive plays you'll ever see, with a coach who's called one of the most brilliant offensive minds in the NBA. Of course, you can't blame someone for making that original comment...the Knicks were a terrible team, and they didn't have a very smooth offense.